alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KLYNE MILTON MCMAHAN, JR., a/k/a Mike McMahon, a/k/a John Adams, a/k/a J.R., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-203, CA-99-1507-2) Submitted: October 27, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and, KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McMahan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny McMahan’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v STEPHEN J. TALTY, Second Lieutenant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

17 USCMA 491, 38 CMR 289

No. 20,911

April 26, 1968

*Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused. Accused.

*Captain John J. Kelly, Jr.,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

Appellant was arraigned before a general court-martial convened at Chu Lai, Republic of Vietnam, charged with being an accessory after the fact and making a false official statement, in violation of Articles 78 and 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 878 and 907, respectively. He pleaded not guilty to both charges. He was found not guilty of the former but guilty of the latter. He was sentenced to dismissal. The convening authority approved the sentence. The board of review was divided in opinion. The minority member believed the accused had been on “tacit probation” and that the dismissal should be commuted to a loss of numbers; thus, he would affirm only so much of the sentence as provided for a loss of three hundred numbers in rank. The two majority members of the board affirmed the findings and the sentence with these words:

> “Appellate defense counsel has assigned as error that the sentence to a dismissal is inappropriately severe for this accused. We consider that the assignment has merit under the particular facts and circumstances of the offense of which he was guilty.

> “Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate authority suspend the sentence to dismissal on probation for an appropriate period of time with the view to ultimate remission.”

We note, parenthetically, that higher authority has taken no action on the above recommendation.

This Court granted appellant’s petition for review to consider the question *492of whether the board of review erred by failing to set aside the dismissal, after determining that the sentence was inappropriately severe.

Where the board believes dismissal to be not an appropriate punishment, clearly the affirmance of that sentence cannot be permitted to stand. Under such circumstances, they may,.without question, reduce a sentence of dismissal to a “less onerous penalty.” We so stated in United States v Russo, 11 USCMA 352, 357, 29 CMR 168.

■ The following, taken from United States v Cavallaro, 3 USCMA 653, 656, 14 CMR 71, is still appropriate:

> “. . . there is a duty on members of boards of review to act within their own sphere and they should not approve a sentence they consider excessive and then appeal to others to reduce. All persons who have any responsibility in fixing, affirming, or reviewing sentences should meet their responsibility by adjudging or affirming a fair and just sentence without regard to any further reductive action that might be taken by others who will subsequently act on the record.”

The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to the board of review for consideration of the sentence in light of the views we herein express.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FeR-guson concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Toreador Resources Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

Dated: November 9, 2009/s/ CRAIG M. MCKENZIE Craig M. McKenzie President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: November 9, 2009/s/ MARC SENGÈS Marc Sengès Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
EX-10.57 Amendment to Employment Agreement






Exhibit 10.57




AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), made this day of January 18, 2008,
by and between TOUSA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Employer”), and Tommy McAden, an
individual (the “Employee”).



BACKGROUND




     Employer and the Employee previously entered into the Employment Agreement, including Exhibits
A, B and C thereto (together the “Agreement”), effective January 1, 2006.



     Employer and the Employee now wish to amend Sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement to comply.



AGREEMENT




     Now, therefore, in consideration of the facts, mutual promises, and covenants contained herein
and intending to be legally bound hereby, Employer and the Employee agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 2 of Exhibit B of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:






“Position. The Employee will serve as Chief Financial Officer and an
Executive Vice President of the Employer. In this capacity, Employee will
have such duties and responsibilities as are reasonably consistent with such
position or as may be assigned or delegated to the Employee from time to
time by the CEO or another executive officer of the Employer identified by
the CEO to the Employee.”




	 	2.	 	Section 4 of Exhibit B of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:






“Base Salary. Employee will be paid an annual salary of Seven
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000), which Base Salary may be
increased from time to time during the Employment Period as set forth in
Section 3.1 of the Agreement.”




	 	3.	 	Section 5 of Exhibit B of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:






“Annual Bonus. During the term of this Agreement, the Employee is eligible to earn
an annual bonus equal to 100% of the Employee’s base salary, payable in accordance
with the Company’s annual bonus schedule.”




 









 









	 	4.	 	All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TOUSA, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Antonio B. Mon
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Antonio B. Mon  	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE

 	 
	 	/s/ Tommy McAden
 	 
	 	Name:  	Tommy McAden    	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128631 & (54)(55) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128631 

 COA: 250296 

Muskegon CC: 02-047104-FC

ERNEST NEAL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

add issue is GRANTED. The motion to remand is DENIED. 

t1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
No. 46890.

#### Protests 23426-K, etc., of Barkers Bros. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with this quarterly report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. James Serrone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)        The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ H. James SerroneH. James SerroneChief Financial OfficerAugust 15, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Thursday, September 1, or on Friday, September 2, 2005, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on 
Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or until the time of any reassembly 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of 
Friday, September 2, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate whenever, in 
their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate September 1, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
EXHIBIT 12

                        TRANSAMERICA FINANCE CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS)

                                                     Six months ended
                                                         June 30,

                                                    2003          2002
                                                    ----          ----

       Fixed charges:

       Interest and debt expense                  $    97.0     $   129.4
       One-third of rental expense                     10.7          12.4
                                                  ---------     ---------
                                                  $   107.7     $   141.8
                                                  =========     =========

       Earnings:

       Income from continuing operations
         before income taxes                      $   280.8     $   111.9
       Fixed charges                                  107.7         141.8
                                                  ---------     ---------
                                                  $   388.5     $   253.7
                                                  =========     =========

       Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              3.61          1.79


     The ratios were computed by dividing income from continuing operations
before income taxes and fixed charges, by fixed charges. Fixed charges consist
of interest and debt expense and one-third of rent expense, which approximates
the interest factor.
July 15, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8953.

#### Bunge *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
# C_2008283EN.01000601.xml

| 7.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 November 2008

(2008/C 283/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2770 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4444 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80500 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0075 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4988 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 205,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7180 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,905 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 261,94 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7081 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,6020 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,7130 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,310 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9530 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8773 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4972 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8973 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1367 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8953 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 706,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,6285 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7155 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1461 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 047,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5250 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,040 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,4665 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,689 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7305 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3328 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2770

JPY

Japanese yen

124,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4444

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80500

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0075

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4988

ISK

Iceland króna

205,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7180

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,905

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

261,94

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7081

PLN

Polish zloty

3,6020

RON

Romanian leu

3,7130

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,310

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9530

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8773

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4972

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8973

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1367

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8953

KRW

South Korean won

1 706,07

ZAR

South African rand

12,6285

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7155

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1461

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 047,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5250

PHP

Philippine peso

62,040

RUB

Russian rouble

34,4665

THB

Thai baht

44,689

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7305

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3328

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MAURICE L. STEVENS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 93 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
APPENDIX K 

ENERGY DATA 

 1/8/2009 

M:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Document\Draft EIS\Ad Draft EIS\Appendices\Energy Appendix 1 - Mainline Traffic.doc 

Existing and Future No Build VMT and VHT Calculations 

The following Tables present the distance and ADT of different segments on I-15 from 

Victorville Station to the proposed South Station location in Las Vegas. 

Table 1 Existing and Future I-15 Mainline ADT for California Segments 

ADT Segment Distance 

(Miles) 2,007 2013 2030 

From No. Jct. Stoddard 

Wells to Jct. I-40 30 63,388 71,113 93,000 

From Jct. I-40 to Nevada 

State Line 110 41,838 48,663 68,000 

Table 2 Existing and Future I-15 Mainline ADT for Nevada Segments 

ADT Segment Distance 

(Miles) 2007 2013 2030 

Primm to Sloan 31 77,888 109,922 200,685 

Sloan to I-215 12 95,102 154,750 323,750 

The corresponding daily VMT is obtained by multiplying the distances by the ADTs. 

Based on the posted speed limit of 70mph, the daily VHT is obtained by dividing the 

VMT by 70. The results are shown below. 

Table 3 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled

VMT Segment 

2007 2013 2030 

From No. Jct. Stoddard 

Wells to Jct. I-40 1,901,640 2,133,390 2,790,000 

From Jct. I-40 to Nevada 

State Line 4,602,180 5,352,930 7,480,000 

Primm to Sloan 2,414,528 3,407,582 6,221,235 

Sloan to I-215 1,141,224 1,857,000 3,885,000 

Total Daily VMT 10,059,572 12,750,902 20,376,235 

Daily VHT 143,708 182,156 291,089
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ORBERT SANFORD GOODBEAR, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 593, 37 CMR 213

No. 19,921

March 24, 1967

*Lieutenant Warren K. Morgens,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Edward A. Infante,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appel-lee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

Appellant was arraigned before a special court-martial convened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, charged with absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. He pleaded guilty and was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $60.00 per month for six months, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction to the grade of private. The convening authority approved the sentence. The supervisory authority, however, approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, suspended for the period of confinement and six months thereafter with provision for automatic remission, forfeiture of $60.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for four months, and reduction to the pay grade of E — 1. A board of review in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy affirmed the finding of guilty and the sentence. This Court thereafter granted accused’s petition for review upon the issue of whether or not he was prejudiced as to the sentence by the failure of the president to reiterate, during instructions to the court on sentence, that only the introduction of two previous convictions authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct discharge.

The record of trial reveals that the *594president of the court instructed the members as to the maximum imposable punishment. He did not specifically instruct that the bad-conduct discharge was imposable only because of two previous convictions. This was error. The defect found in this record is substantially identical to that found in United States v Ferree, 16 USCMA 506, 37 CMR 126. Our opinion in that case is controlling.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for further action. The board of review may affirm a sentence which does not include a bad-conduct discharge or a rehearing may be ordered on the penalty.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FeRGU-SON concur.
(Reap. Dec. 9247)

#### North American Plywood Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 798905, etc.

(Decided November 6, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision were submitted for decision by counsel for the parties upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in- the Appeals to Reap-praisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consists of plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956 and that the merchandise is properly dutiable on the basis of the foreign market value as defined in Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges *574and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised unit values less 4% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

On the agreed facts I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value in each case was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.